What is a fallacy anyway?
A fallacy is a heuristic that's known to be bad. Heuristic being simply what we call methods for making judgments.So, if we assume someone is lying because they're from Sweden, that's a bad heuristic. Swedes can be correct about things (this will shock the Danes out there, no doubt).
Since philosophy worked under a mistaken notion of deductive primacy for about two thousand years, we've got long lists of heuristics that are bad when doing deduction. But given that what we actually rely the most on is induction, this can lead to some confusion.
So, apart from the unfortunate tendency of people to think the problem of induction is a problem for induction (it's actually a problem for deduction, as deduction is completely dependent on induction if it wants to speak of reality), there's another overlooked aspect to the differences between these two forms of reason:
No deductive fallacy can be assumed to be fallacious for induction.
For some, it's simply because evidence != proof. Some examples are argument from ignorance and appeal to probability both of which are prohibitive for deduction, but crucial heuristics for induction - we could not function at all if we did not assume the probable is probable or that things for which no evidence exists are less likely to be true than things for which evidence does exist.
For others it's that the fundamental process of forming an inductive argument is different from the process of forming an deductive argument.
Let's say you observe a number of events (including event x) leading you to conclude the rule y for events like x, is it now fallacious to apply y to x, as x was part of the basis for concluding y?
I don't think so.
So, for each fallacy, it needs to be established independently whether it's relevant for induction:
Distrusting all evidence provided by Swedes is clearly not called for, but it's clearly not a good idea to place great trust in evidence gained through torture or from people who have a vested interest in a given conclusion being reached.
However, induction is a great deal more complex than deduction, so clear-cut rules are hard to come by, and one might establish inductively how to weight various sources of evidence for maximum accuracy : In fact, this is what many sciences do as a matter of course.
